The Harrowing of Hell
The Universalist Understanding
The Intro to Hades
This doctrine of the Apostles seems very vague to some Christians, and even neglected. The harrowing of Hell continues within patristic tradition that was derived from one of the Petrine letters, and the letter to the Ephesians. However, many theologians (with Infernalist/Annihilation leanings) have either somewhat distorted this doctrine, acted oblivious or agnostic about it, or have completely denied its validity. The matter and topic today will be to confirm the Harrowing of Hell as a true dogmatic teaching of the Apostles, and to rightly explain its coherency to a purgative/universalist hell. As a reminder, I don’t believe in a weird pantheistic universalism, or the belief that everyone will enter the celestial realms upon immediate death (i.e. without hell). Since I have purged away misunderstandings or any confusion, let’s resume the matter.
Christian Mortalism
Objection #1: Soul Sleep/Physicalism
There are a group of believers who deny the harrowing of hell when it comes to Christ preaching the Gospel to the dead. Indeed, you’ll find this group mostly with Annihilationist leanings, or those who simply affirm a temporal cessation of the soul. The biggest issue with soul sleep is that it denies the claim of Christ, and the Early Church’s understanding of the three-day period of Christ’s descent. Dogmatically, soul sleep is just not logically consistent with the basic premises of the Christian faith. If Christ was gone for a long period of time, what good or pragmatic reason should Christ be annihilated or temporally asleep until His resurrection? Some argue time dilation as a reason for it, but time dilation could also be argued in a conscious sense. The notion of soul sleep isn’t new since there were few (but mainly those who deviated from the early patristic tradition) that taught it based on a misconception of 1st Timothy 6:16. It is true that some Christians like Justin Martyr and Athenagoras of Athens were open to the possibility of a soul sleep, but the Arabici (Arabian Christian sect) fell into this error and isolated themselves from the Church until Origen reconciled them theologically and ecclesiastically back to the Church. Christian mortalism or soul sleep, indeed, was an early heretical notion.
One objection that these kinds of believers utilize would be the notion of Sheol being in like manner to Hades, which is simply the grave and not the realm of the conscious dead. Their objection occurs like this: “The mortalist view of the intermediate state requires an alternative view of the Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31, taking a view of the New Testament use of Hell as equivalent to use of Hades in the Septuagint and therefore to Sheol in the Old Testament.” “For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption,” and “Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption’ ” (Acts 2:27, 31). It is true to consider that from an early period within Judaism, the concept of the soul wasn’t conceived in their minds until there was a progression of thought that came from Babylonian influence and Hellenistic influence. But even still, one could argue that the Hebrews had some ethereal conception in their minds based on spiritual realities being displayed in 1st Samuel 28:1–25 (e.g. Samuel as a spirit) and Exodus 12:23 (e.g. angel of death); however, whether these stories were influenced by non-Jewish beliefs or not, the ethereal conception is present. Regardless of the Old Testament narrative, we know that Paul was a Hellenized Jew, so logically, he must have accepted certain ideas from the Greeks, which would also include the ontological immortality of the soul. Such an idea was common among their community, so there’s no reason to doubt this kind of understanding. Also, this false dichotomy of beliefs between Jewish and Greek/Gentile paradigms is absurd, because Christianity is a partial synthesis of each branch, but ultimately conformed and refined by the Logos who came in the flesh. In this sense, though David might have meant Sheol or the grave in a Jewish paradigm, Peter intended it to mean both death and the underworld in a Hellenized Jewish paradigm. I don’t appeal to David’s psalms of Sheol and corruption as being a meaningless repetition, because the psalms are poetic rather than a theological discourse; however, it seems like Peter is appealing to the existence of Hades. And if Peter is intending this, I could argue that he is right philosophically but wrong exegetically if David is oblivious to Hades (the Hellenistic conception). Either way, Peter is arguing for the Christological reading of the Psalms, which is based on another Hellenistic concept like pneumatic exegesis (or mystical interpretation). So if Peter and Paul are known to utilize a Hellenistic concept for reading the Hebrew scriptures, then their understanding of Hades is not synonymous with the grave.
Another objection is given as well: “Of the three days, Christ says “I was dead” (Greek egenomen nekros ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς, Latin fui mortuus) [Revelation 1:18].” Case closed, right? No, because if we actually read Revelation in full context, we find an alternative argument. In continuation from the same verse, “[And] now look, I am alive unto the ages of the ages! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” So then, if Christ merely intends physical death or material deconstruction, what pragmatic good is there for repeating the mention of it. The most plausible reading would be that Christ has dominion over death and over the psychical realm of the dead. If we ignore progressive revelation that transpired over a period of time, not only does it lead to the rejection of the astral/spiritual reality, but it also leads to the rejection of the resurrection from the Babylonian influence, which explains why the Sadducees rejected the resurrection due to a strict acceptance of the Torah and nothing more. So then, Christian mortalists generate the same mistake akin to the mistake of the Sadducees. Here’s confirmation that Paul believed in a literal descent of Christ, which proves the soul sleep/physicalist objection to be unreasonable:
8 “Therefore He says: ‘When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.’ ” 9 (Now this, “He ascended” — what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?” (Ephesians 4:8, 9).
Infernalist Readings of Hades
Objection #1: The Spirits of the Nephilim
A contrary reading of Christ’s descent to Hades is to suggest that He spoke and condemned the demonic spirits that lived at the time of Noah. They base this kind of dogma from 1st Enoch 15:8–9, which describes the origin of demons and based on 2nd Peter 2:4 along with Jude 6. However, unlike 1st Peter 3:19 and 4:1–6, though the Flood is comparable, the semantics for the presumed notion of demons and angels aren’t consistent, neither is Jesus preaching the Gospel to the dead mentioned in either Jude or 2nd Peter. Since Peter uses “dead” to denote physical death of an entity, and the common term for “spirit” (very vague and diverse in meaning), he is most likely intending wicked humans who died on the earth. 1st Enoch plainly states that fallen angels and demons aren’t ontologically synonymous, and if Peter intended demons, the proper Greek term to convey that meaning without any confusion would be “δαιμόνιον” (daimonion) and not “pneuma” (spirit). Yes, demons and angels are spiritual, but semantically, it renders the text too vague to fathom unless we concede that Peter meant human spirits. Hence, the Nephilim objection is faulty, and inconsistent with Enochian literature and semantic usage.
Objection #2: The Typological & Moral Objection
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…(1st PETER 3:18–21).
The two simple objections claim that Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison was just an anti-type of Noah’s preaching, and the “dead” based on their reading of Ephesians would be a moral issue for the wicked on earth rather than being dead in a physiological sense. However, each of these readings are improbable and have no merit under the power of scrutiny. Surely, if the notion of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison is simply metaphor, or simply an anti-type of Noah’s preaching to the wicked, it would be a meaningless typological claim, because if the author intended this, it would have been much more consistent if the author compared Jesus’ warning concerning the destruction of Jerusalem with Noah’s warning concerning the flood rather than mentioning Jesus’ descent in preaching to those in Hades. In Christian typology, every Old Testament type is meant to prefigure a reality of Christ’s deeds, not Christlike metaphors; in addition, arguing that Jesus preaching to the imprisoned spirits as being only metaphorical, whereas arguing that Noah’s deeds as being purely historical are both contradictory to Christian typology for Christ. Though there is a moralistic reading when it comes to 1st Peter 3:18–21 and 4:1–6 due to the mention of baptism serving as a moral devotion, and due to the mention of Christ suffering so as to cause one to cease from sin, this kind of reading still doesn’t negate the fleshly or somatic reading of “the dead” since the universalist reading affirms that the wicked need moral purification after death. And the suggestion of the dead strictly meaning those who are alive but morally dead is an unreasonable reading, because Peter could have simply stated the wicked rather than assert “dead” metaphorically. Here’s Chapter 4, verse 1–6:
“Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles — when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. Indeed, for this reason was the Gospel preached also to those who are dead, so that they might be judged [together with; kata] men in the flesh, but live together with God in the spirit.
The Koine Greek term for “kata” has alternative meanings, but the best reading of the text would be “together with” or “along with,” so excuse the minor change. Anyway, it makes more theological sense to interpret or fathom this Petrine verse as suggesting that the Gospel was preached to the dead, so that they could also be judged along with the living. Because Peter mentions Christ preaching to the imprisoned spirits in verses prior, it is truly plausible to suggest that Peter meant that Christ preached the Gospel to the dead in this verse. Though the moral interpretation has some merit, it cannot account for the post-mortem tautological phrases (e.g. 3:19, 4:6); hence, such verses strongly imply a post-mortem evangelism. Though the dead will be judged like men in the flesh (which is another proper reading of it), they’ll be made alive like God in spirit. The only hellish construct that’s capable of judging men, but rendering them spiritually alive would be the belief in a purgative hell along with post-mortem evangelism. Hence, the purely metaphorical and strictly moralistic reading of these Petrine verses are unacceptable and unreasonable to justify.
The Patristic Exegesis
Melito of Sardis (100–180 AD)
102) “It is I”, says the Christ, “I am He who destroys death, and triumphs over the enemy, and crushes Hades, and binds the strong man, and bears humanity off to the heavenly heights.” “It is I,” says the Christ. 103) “So come all families of people, adulterated with sin, and receive liberation [aphesis] of sins. For I am your freedom. I am the Passover of salvation…, (On Pascha 1.102–103).
Christ, according to Melito’s report, invites all the families of humans, but fails to make a distinction between the righteous and the wicked, and He also adds those corrupted with sin to be saved or delivered by Himself. Indeed, this passage offers insight that such post-mortem deliverance isn’t limited to the faithful Jews, but to every person in Hades. Whether this passage is only referring to those who believed in the God of Judaism or not, it fails to make this as being a required condition for salvation from sin and Hades. According to Genesis 12:3, when God spoke to Abraham about his offspring (and Christ) being a blessing to all families of the earth, it was intended to have a universal effect upon mankind in similar manner to Christ’s invitation to the dead; in conclusion of these claims, universalism is being affirmed in this patristic account.
Hermas the Freedman (100–170 AD?)
“Because,” he said, “these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. Moreover, these descended alive and rose up again alive, whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive. By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God. For this reason also did they ascend with them, and were fitted along with them into the building of the tower, and, untouched by the chisel, were built in along with them. For they slept in righteousness and in great purity, but only they had not this seal” (The Shepherd, Similitudes 9.16).
Another Christian revelator (or mystic) witnessed a post-mortem evangelism of the Apostles who preached the Gospel to the dead (or those fallen asleep). Someone could argue that this evangelism was limited to the just who didn’t know about the Gospel based on “They slept in righteousness and in great purity,” but remember, they [i.e. the righteous] didn’t have the seal of preaching which was also conferred by the Apostles. So then, who was given the seal of preaching? Logically, the seal of preaching (or baptism) was given to the unjust repentant. The angel explained to Hermas that not only were those who descended alive arose alive, but also those who descended dead arose alive as well. Those who descended dead imply the unjust, whereas those who descended alive were the righteous who didn’t receive baptism (or the seal of preaching). And Peter explained that baptism is a symbol of promising unto God that one will devote themselves to a good conscience; hence, this is all in reference to the unjust converting in Hades.
Clement of Alexandria (150–215? AD)
“If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there; since God’s punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of a sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.
If, then, He preached only to the Jews, who wanted the knowledge and faith of the Savior, it is plain that, since God is no respecter of persons, the apostles also, as here, so there preached the Gospel to those of the heathen who were ready for conversion. And it is well said by the Shepherd, “They went down with them therefore into the water, and again ascended. But these descended alive, and again ascended alive. But those who had fallen asleep, descended dead, but ascended alive.” Further the Gospel says, “that many bodies of those that slept arose,” — plainly as having been translated to a better state. There took place, then, a universal movement and translation through the economy of the Savior” (Stromata, Book VI.6).
Even Clement of Alexandria understood from the Shepherd as well as from the Apostolic scriptures that Christ descended into Hades to preach the Gospel, in hopes of the captives being liberated by Christ and later by the Apostles. Clement claims from the Petrine letter that Christ preached to those who perished in the flood with absolute certainty, rather than rendering those verses as merely metaphorical/typological or in regard to “the dead” as a purely moralistic matter. Lastly, Clement argues that God’s means of discipline are purely remedial and purgative for sin, instead of retaining a punitive or purely destructive nature. [J explain in-depth in the link found at the preface].
The Concluding Matter
Though, some Christians might appeal to Tertullian’s interpretation of Samuel’s spirit ascending from Hades to be merely a demonic spirit, so as to affirm and prove the annihilation of human souls (On the Soul: Ch. 57). However, this notion of Tertullian ironically contradicts his belief that the saints dwell in Hades until Christ’s appearance, and logically, why would the witch of Endor be provoked to fear for a demonic spirit if that’s her usual role? And if one argues that this was the first time in actually conjuring an evil spirit, why would she conjure up an evil spirit if she knows it isn’t possible; hence, she would basically be at risk in being slaughtered by the king. It would be illogical for her take a role that requires non-deducible knowledge or conjuring up spirits if she isn’t capable of any of these. This theory or mode of interpretation cannot be argued as logical or plausible; also, she regards Samuel’s spirit appearing like a god, which would entail a good quality similar to theosis (or God-like transformation).
Nevertheless, the certain Church Fathers not affected by Latin transmissions of the Scriptures, and even regarded to be influential among other early Christians of that period, considered the Harrowing of Hell reading from the Petrine verses, which also includes the Universalist paradigm. These Patristics not only include Melito of Sardis, Hermas the Freedman, and Clement of Alexandria, but also Ignatius of Antioch (Magnesians 9), Origen of Alexandria (On Romans 5.10; Contra Celsus 2.43), and Irenaeus of Lyons (AH: V.31.1). Despite the quotes of the latter three not mentioning the preaching of the Gospel to the wicked, Origen was indeed a universalist and used the doctrine of omission. Irenaeus is somewhat difficult due to Latin mis-translations yet he never condemned universalism in any of his works. Lastly, Ignatius, though he mentions an “unquenchable fire,” such an idea never conveys eternal duration, which even Eusebius uses to describe the cruel death of certain martyrs from Alexandria. (Ephesians 16). By the way, the English translators wrongly rendered “unquenchable” as “everlasting” in Ephesians 16. Nevertheless, Ignatius also utilizes the doctrine of Reserve or omission to conceal teachings that will choke the faith of immature believers (Trallians 5). Ignatius, Irenaeus, and even the Universalist Origen used the doctrine of Reserve or omission to conceal the true teaching of hell, in order to avoid immoral recklessness and sluggish faith. Even the Shepherd retains such a doctrine by using ambiguity as presented prior, and even suggesting that the most worst of sinners will die into the age of futurity. (Again, the English translators wrongly rendered “into the Age” as “forever” in the Shepherd [εἰς τόν αιωνα] vs [εἰσαεί]).
Indeed, despite the subtleties and omissions from the Fathers, the paradigm of post-mortem evangelism along with patristic universalism is blatant and irrefutable. The Harrowing of Hell is a patristic doctrine, and based on three early Fathers of the second century, such a doctrine wasn’t perceived as purely metaphorical. Such a doctrine shouldn’t be rejected since our Lord uses an OT analogy to prefigure His deeds in Hades (Matthew 12:40).
